Sietske C.M.W. van Nassau , Helene R. Voogdt-Pruis , Vincent M.W. de Jong , Hans-Martin Otten , Liselot B. Valkenburg-van Iersel , Bas J. Swarte , Tineke E. Buffart , Hans J. Pruijt , Leonie J. Mekenkamp , Miriam Koopman , Anne M. May
{"title":"Improving sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A qualitative study","authors":"Sietske C.M.W. van Nassau , Helene R. Voogdt-Pruis , Vincent M.W. de Jong , Hans-Martin Otten , Liselot B. Valkenburg-van Iersel , Bas J. Swarte , Tineke E. Buffart , Hans J. Pruijt , Leonie J. Mekenkamp , Miriam Koopman , Anne M. May","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To improve sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, we evaluated real-world experiences and identified ways to optimize decision aid content and future implementation.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Semi-structured interviews with patients and medical oncologists addressed two main subjects: user experience and decision aid content. Content analysis was applied. Fifteen experts discussed the results and devised improvements based on experience and literature review.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Thirteen users were interviewed. They confirmed the relevance of the decision aid for shared decision making. Areas for improvement of content concerned; 1) outdated and missing information, 2) an imbalance in presentation of treatment benefits and harms, and 3) medical oncologists' expressed preference for a more center-specific or patient individualized decision aid, presenting a selection of the guideline recommended treatment options. Key points for improvement of implementation were better alignment within the care pathway, and clear instruction to users.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We identified relevant opportunities for improvement of an existing decision aid and developed an updated version and accompanying implementation strategy accordingly.</p></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><p>This paper outlines an approach for continued decision aid and implementation strategy development which will add to sustainability. Implementation success of the improved decision aid is currently being studied in a multi-center mixed-methods implementation study.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000487/pdfft?md5=42cef5b699414602ae870dc811fe52bf&pid=1-s2.0-S2772628224000487-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To improve sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, we evaluated real-world experiences and identified ways to optimize decision aid content and future implementation.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews with patients and medical oncologists addressed two main subjects: user experience and decision aid content. Content analysis was applied. Fifteen experts discussed the results and devised improvements based on experience and literature review.
Results
Thirteen users were interviewed. They confirmed the relevance of the decision aid for shared decision making. Areas for improvement of content concerned; 1) outdated and missing information, 2) an imbalance in presentation of treatment benefits and harms, and 3) medical oncologists' expressed preference for a more center-specific or patient individualized decision aid, presenting a selection of the guideline recommended treatment options. Key points for improvement of implementation were better alignment within the care pathway, and clear instruction to users.
Conclusion
We identified relevant opportunities for improvement of an existing decision aid and developed an updated version and accompanying implementation strategy accordingly.
Innovation
This paper outlines an approach for continued decision aid and implementation strategy development which will add to sustainability. Implementation success of the improved decision aid is currently being studied in a multi-center mixed-methods implementation study.